Tag: Whistleblowing

WikiLeaks – A powerful resource for secure and anonymous disclosures

Of course no method is completely secure with zero risk but this service has an outstanding track record – and it has powerful bodies with unhealthy secrets worried…

WikiLeaks is an internationally recognized secure service based in Iceland for anonymous whistleblowers who wish to leak sensitive “governmental, corporate, organizational, or religious documents,” sound recordings, and audiovisual media.

If you are a potential whistleblower tortured by unethical malfeasance that puts democracy and citizens at risk, then maybe WikiLeaks can be of use to you.  Here is their site with a secure submission link:

WikiLeaks website.

Since its December 2006 launch Wikileaks has produced more media scoops than the ten largest investigative newspapers in the US combined and its database has grown to more than one million documents.

You imagined such a service as a solution – well it exists. Be part of the international movement towards transparency and accountability. Resolve your work-related moral dilemma. Help clean up the mess.

Wikileaks gets funding from individuals and independent media organization and professional associations and it gets legal and societal structural support from the state of Iceland.

Here is a recent independent web media video report about developments regarding Wikileaks:

Corbett Report on WikiLeaks in Iceland

(For all the posts by Canadians for Accountability Blog contributor Denis Rancourt click the label “DENISR“.)

  • Share/Bookmark
by DenisR on March 28, 2010
filed in Corporate Accountability, Freedom of Speech, Media Updates, Political Accountability, Whistlebowing and Culture
tagged , , , , , ,

Media Update for March 25, 2010

News Summary and Comment:

In today’s media update, there seems to be a real war of words in the Rights and Democracy controversy. For those of you who haven’t been following, Rights and Democracy is a government funded agency with a mandate to fund international organizations in support of, well, rights and democracy. The agency came to public attention when president Remy Beauregard died suddenly following an acrimonious meeting with his board.

Subsequently, it came out that the board had essentially been secretly and not-so-secretly undermining Beauregard, including, for example, secret performance reviews and a (false) accusation that he met with Hamas and Hezbollah leaders.

After Beauregard’s death, three employees publicly expressed their lack of confidence in the board and were fired as a result.

The opposition parties have been all over this, claiming that the governing Tories didn’t like Beauregard’s approach and that they wanted a more pro-Israeli line in Rights and Democracy. The announcement of Gérard Latulippe, a man with connections to the Conservatives, was met with protest.

The Conservatives, on the other hand, have been either silent or have argued that the issue was one of accountability, not ideology.

This week, the much maligned board of the group came out swinging with an op-ed in the Ottawa Citizen, Senator Linda Frum supported the board in Macleans, and Macleans blogger Paul Wells rebutted. Also, Rights and Democracy board chair Aurel Braun first promised to come before Parliamentary committee – then cancelled.

While it is tempting to pin this all on political machinations, I can’t help but wonder if this isn’t just or also a case of malicious and incompetent management gotten out of control.

For me, it’s the board’s Citizen op-ed that pushes me in that direction. The piece is so self-serving, so arrogant and so disingenuous that I have to conclude that this lot care about nothing but their own self-interest. Early in the piece, they proclaim that this story “should have disappeared long ago” – as if they should be the ones who decide.

They also claim that the crisis “was self-created by staff within the organization”, pretending that they had nothing at all to do with it. Even if it were true, it would be an admission of negligence and incompetence. They’re the board. Are they saying they had no idea that staff were dissatisfied? And that they did nothing to address the problem?

“Accountability is the issue that should be the sole rallying point at Rights and Democracy. Alas, accountability seems to suit no one’s agenda except that of the board and the taxpayer,” they argue later.

Really? What of, um, rights and democracy?

These people also seem unaware of the irony of cracking down on staff who have expressed their opinions. Now don’t get me wrong – if a typical employee openly calls for his boss’ firing, he shouldn’t be surprised if he himself gets fired. But this is not a typical organization or a typical situation – it even has shades of whistleblowing. In any event, the public scrutiny would have had any sensible, thinking person wondering whether a summary firing was the best approach. But they seem to think that firing was the only option available to them. Nothing else, not some sort of conciliatory meeting, not mediation. Just firing. In the context of the situation, it looks thuggish. It also says a lot about their management methods.

This is all only worsened by the board’s statement that they welcome public hearings, and then suddenly declining to appear before Parliamentary committee.

So while there may indeed be a political dimension to this – I can’t say because I simply don’t know – I do think it safe to say that the board is composed of people who are, shall we say, ill-suited for their jobs, clumsy and destined to bring more disrepute to the organization. One just hopes that the government recognizes this and corrects the situation.

Have a good weekend.

—————————————————————————————————————————–

War of Words over Rights and Democracy

Afghan Detainee Documents Dispute Continues

Newfoundland and Labrador Health Authority Reviews

More Abuse of Freedom of Information and Privacy Laws

New Study Shows Weakness of Anonymous Whistleblowing Systems

—————————————————————————————————————————–

War of Words over Rights and Democracy

The real trouble at Rights and Democracy
Macleans, March 22, 2010
Summary: The sudden death in January of Remy Beauregard has injected an element of sorrow to the situation, but it does not alter a public body’s duty to account for public money. By January 2010, even Beauregard finally came to the conclusion that giving money to Al Haq (and like organizations) was wrong and voted to repudiate it. But the staff he left behind remain resentful of the board’s scrutiny. (Column)

Rights and Democracy: Let 100 schools of thought contend
Macleans, March 22, 2010
Summary: The current print edition of Maclean’s contains a guest column from Sen. Linda Frum, a friend of this magazine who pauses to say some nice things about me while attempting a general rebuttal of my coverage of the Rights and Democracy controversy. (Blog)

We welcome public hearings on Rights and Democracy
Ottawa Citizen, March 22, 2010
Summary: Rights and Democracy is a news story that keeps on giving. Why? It’s everyone’s favourite political football. Two recent op-eds in this paper alone presented distorted views on a story that should have disappeared long ago. As members of the board of directors, we must once again state the obvious: there is no right-wing agenda imposed on this autonomous organization; and it is not all about Israel. There is, however, an internal revolt against accountability, and there is interference and exploitation by outsiders who willingly propagate convenient fantasies for their own ends. (Op-ed)

Rights&Democracy Watch: Chairman Braun regrets…
CBC News, March 22, 2010
Summary: The last-minute cancellation of Chairman Brau’s appearance, which he had confirmed as recently as last week, comes on the very same day that an op-ed screed under his name and those of other board members appeared in newspapers across the country, calling on “Parliament to hold public hearings” into the state of affairs at the beleaguered organization, “so that facts can replace fantasies.” One can only conclude that a parliamentary committee isn’t quite what he has in mind.

—————————————————————————————————————————–

Afghan Detainee Documents Dispute Continues

New Afghan detainee documents released
CBC News, March 25, 2010
Summary: The federal government has tabled about 2,500 pages of heavily redacted documents related to the Afghan detainee controversy in the House of Commons. The presentation sparked immediate outrage from opposition MPs, who have been trying to get the Conservative government to honour a parliamentary order to release the documents pertaining to the handling of Afghan detainees without heavily blacked-out redactions.

Droits et Démocratie: deux témoins se défilent
La Presse, March 22, 2010
Summary: Deux dirigeants au coeur de la crise à Droits et Démocratie, le président par intérim, Jacques Gauthier, et le numéro 1 du conseil d’administration, Aurel Braun, ont annulé, lundi, leur comparution devant le comité des Affaires étrangères, prévue pour aujourd’hui.

—————————————————————————————————————————–

Newfoundland and Labrador Health Authority Reviews

Toxic conditions cited in Eastern Health lab review
CBC News, March 15, 2010
Summary: The lab at Newfoundland and Labrador’s largest health authority is plagued by intimidated staff, a toxic working environment and distrust between colleagues, an external review has found.

Many recommendations from botched cancer test probe already acted on
Globe and Mail, March 25, 2010
Summary: Newfoundland and Labrador Health Minister Jerome Kennedy claimed his government has acted on 39 of 60 recommendations made by an inquiry into botched breast cancer tests. He cited improvements to equipment, oversight and the introduction of apology legislation to protect caregivers who apologize for mistakes.

—————————————————————————————————————————–

More Abuse of Freedom of Information and Privacy Laws

I Avoid the Word Privacy (And You Should Too)
Information, March 2, 2010
Summary: A blog posting by Pierrot Péladeau on the definitions of privacy, and how the meaning has inadvertently – and inappropriately – been expanded in law beyond its true meaning, rendering the functioning of government more difficult. (Blog)

There was probably nothing to find in search for the truth about Liberal financial forecast
Vancouver Sun, March 25, 2010
Summary: The New Democratic Party lost no time following the last election pursuing suspicions that the B.C. Liberals had misled voters about the deteriorating state of provincial finances. The final results were not yet certified when the Opposition filed a formal request under access to information law for any and all updates to the minister of finance on provincial revenue forecasts in the months leading up to election day.

Privacy rules limit government services
Times Colonist (Victoria), March 25, 2010
Summary: The safety of victims of domestic violence is jeopardized by the lack of clear authority in B.C.’s information and privacy law for the sharing of important information, MLAs were told yesterday.

—————————————————————————————————————————–

New Study Shows Weakness of Anonymous Whistleblowing Systems

Anonymous Whistle-Blowing Systems Are Often Dysfunctional
Newswise, March 25, 2010
Summary: Landmark regulations designed to detect and deter financial fraud via anonymous whistle-blowers can be dysfunctional and ineffective, according to new research from the University of Hampshire.

  • Share/Bookmark
1 Comment by Ian Bron on March 25, 2010
filed in Media Updates
tagged , , , , ,

Media Update for March 22, 2010

News Summary and Comment:

This Monday, as many in the past, the document dispute in the Afghan detainee controversy continues to dominate accountability news. Where things stand now is that the federal government has hired retired justice Frank Iacobucci to review documents which it claims are too sensitive to release unedited to Parliamentarians. The Opposition, meanwhile, is having none of that: it wants to see the documents now, not at some undefined point in the future, and it’s threatening to put several Ministers in contempt of Parliament if it doesn’t get its way.

Someone has now proposed that a limited number of Parliamentarians with security clearances review the documents. Several experts have endorsed this approach.

The agency Rights and Democracy is also still in the news as the Conservatives are attempting to block the widow of the late President Remy Beauregard from testifying in Parliamentary committee, claiming, essentially that it would be too emotionally charged. They also want to block the testimony of some employees who were fired for their dissidence. Hmm. Not very transparent.

Expenses of MPs and top bureaucrats are coming under closer scrutiny. Or rather, the lack of scrutiny is coming under scrutiny. The Halifax Chronicle-Herald, following up on its extensive coverage of Nova Scotia’s recent MLA expenses scandal, ran a long piece on MP expenses being immune from outside audit and reported some self-serving justifications and disingenuousness on the part of MPs. Meanwhile, the Hill Times reports that a certain Drew McPherson has developed a website that compiles ministers’ and bureaucrats’ travel and hospitality expenses. Great work, Drew – I tip my hat to you. Now all we need is for someone to do an audit of reported versus unreported expenses…

On to Chander Grover. You remember him, don’t you? Well, you can be forgiven if you don’t. Chander was run out of the National Research Council some 23 years ago. He has won multiple rulings in tribunals and courts since then, but the NRC continues to stonewall. Why? Because it’s not their money they’re spending to defend the indefensible – it’s yours, so the joke’s on you. In any event, the South Asia Mail ran a number of pieces on him this week.

Three international stories show the importance of whistleblowers, and how they are still being persecuted even where laws exist to protect them. The first involves a study about to be reported in the The Journal of Finance that shows that whistleblowers are the biggest source of information on corporate malfeasance in the U.S. (about 17%), followed closely by short-sellers and stock analysts. In contrast, the Securities and Exchange Commission – the regulatory authority – only accounted for 6% of cases. This, I think, is the result of bureaucratic incompetence and the willingness of regulators to trust people who appear to be respected authority figures. That is, they’re easy dupes.

Two other cases provide evidence. In one, a letter has surfaced showing that a whistleblower tried to stop the abuses and chicanery that led to the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings – the largest corporate collapse in U.S. (and probably world) history. His reward? A summary firing. Meanwhile, in the U.K., The Guardian reports that whistleblowers are still being hammered by employers for reporting wrongdoing 10 years after passing laws intended to protect them

Here in Canada, where we lag both countries in both attitudes and laws regarding whistleblowers, I just wish we had some party would take this up as an issue. Sigh.

See you Thursday.

—————————————————————————————————————————–

Afghan Detainee Documents Dispute Continues

Rights and Democracy under Scrutiny in Parliamentary Committee

Calls for Closer Scrutiny of MP Expenses

The South Asia Mail Denounces Treatment of Former NRC Scientist Chander Grover

Efforts to Keep Tommy Douglas File From Public Criticized

Study – and Stories – Show that Regulators Much Less Effective than Whistleblowers

—————————————————————————————————————————–

Afghan Detainee Documents Dispute Continues

Opposition threatens contempt motion over Afghan torture documents
The Star (Toronto), March 18, 2010
Summary: The opening volley was fired Thursday over what could become a protracted constitutional war over Parliament’s right to know versus the government’s right to keep secrets. Fed up with months of government foot-dragging on their demand for uncensored documents related to the alleged torture of Afghan detainees, opposition MPs sought a formal ruling from the Speaker of the House of Commons that their parliamentary privileges have been breached.

Farewell, soon-to-be-former Deputy Attorney General John H. Sims
CBCNews, March 19, 2010
Summary: Yes, according to the Department of Justice, earlier this week, Deputy Minister John H. Sims — a three-plus-decade veteran of the civil service — gave notice, via widely-distributed letter, that he would be leaving his post, effective April 1. The news apparently provoked mild-to-middling surprise on the mandarin circuit, since generally speaking, the imminent departure of such a senior official would have been telegraphed months in advance, and not announced in a brief note just two weeks before his last day on the job. The timing is especially curious given how deeply enmeshed in the Afghan detainee controversy his soon to be former department has become, particularly given yesterday’s Questions of Privilege. (Blog posting)

Security-cleared parliamentary panel could review Afghan detainee documents: experts
Winnipeg Free Press, March 21, 2010
Summary: Setting up a special committee of senior parliamentarians to examine sensitive documents about Afghan detainees could help defuse a brewing political crisis over access to the information, intelligence experts say.

—————————————————————————————————————————–

Rights and Democracy under Scrutiny in Parliamentary Committee

Tories aim to block testimony from widow of rights group head
The Star (Toronto), March 18, 2010
Summary: Conservative MPs are thwarting the grieving widow of former Rights and Democracy president Remy Beauregard from testifying at a Commons committee. Suzanne Trepanier has requested permission to appear at the Foreign Affairs committee to defend her husband’s record and provide her version of events that she believes contributed to Beauregard’s fatal heart attack in January following an agency board meeting.

—————————————————————————————————————————–

Calls for Closer Scrutiny of MP Expenses

State secrets
The Chronicle-Herald (Halifax), March 22, 2010
Summary: The expense spending of federal MPs has never been subjected to the same kind of audit that uncovered abuses in Nova Scotia and other legislatures, and although MPs from all parties say rules are tighter in Ottawa, they also refuse to open the books to auditor general Sheila Fraser to confirm that there is no waste.

A new website compiles ministers’ and top bureaucrats’ travel and hospitality disclosures, neatly
The Hill Times (Ottawa), March 22, 2010
Summary: When 33-year-old web developer Drew Mcpherson waited in a Halifax doctor’s office in 2007, reading a Maclean’s magazine article headlined, “Your tax dollars at work,” on proactive disclosure in the post-George Radwanski bureaucracy and how senior officials were still spending lavishly, he decided to do something about it. (Note: available to subscribers only)

—————————————————————————————————————————–

The South Asia Mail Denounces Treatment of Former NRC Scientist Chander Grover

State-sponsored Racial Discrimination in Canada: Racial Discrimination of Dr. Grover by the NRC
The South Asia Mail, March 22, 2010
Summary: Dr. Chander P. Grover, a Canadian citizen of South Asian descent, has been the victim of “state sponsored” racial discrimination for 23 years orchestrated by his employer, the National Research Council with the backing of several Central Agencies of the Government of Canada.

An eloquent example of racial discrimination in Canada
The South Asia Mail, March 22, 2010
Summary: Racial discrimination is very much alive in Canada. It is highly prevalent in the federal public service.

Dr. Grover: Where does the truth lie?
The South Asia Mail, March 22, 2010
Summary: The case of Dr. Chander P. Grover against the National Research Council (NRC) and his twenty-two year ordeal for racial equality has been narrated on many occasions and well chronicled in court proceedings, in Parliament Hansards, in academic studies in law and in the media. As we have just observed March 21, the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, I ask our honourable Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, to restore moral integrity and in the interests of the public and the nation, to end this shameful travesty of justice. (Editorial)

—————————————————————————————————————————–

Efforts to Keep Tommy Douglas File From Public Criticized

Is bid to hide Tommy Douglas’s file insidious or just silly?
The Vancouver Sun, March 19, 2010
Summary: The idea that the disclosure of people and tactics used 40 to 60 years ago or more will threaten continuing business suggests that CSIS is still using methods that, if exposed, would offend not only public sensibilities but perhaps even the law. Given the trust we must have in CSIS, that suspicion is intolerable. (Column)

—————————————————————————————————————————–

Study – and Stories – Show that Regulators Much Less Effective than Whistleblowers

Whistle-blowers find more corporate fraud than regulators, study finds
The Dallas Morning News, March 22, 2010
Summary: I bet cunning corporate pooh-bahs who have stolen from a company, ripped off shareholders or bilked the government fear most a visit from a Securities and Exchange Commission regulator. If so, their worries may be misplaced. The SEC surprisingly is just a minor player on the fraud-busting front. Chances are, any corporate shenanigans coming to light will be from a trusted aide or embittered employee- turned-whistle-blower.

Whistleblower in Lehman Brothers was Ignored before Collapse

Letter: Lehman Accounting Tricks Possibly Illegal
ABC News, March 18, 2010
Summary: A Lehman Brothers whistleblower warned his bosses that accounting gimmicks the bank used before its collapse may have been illegal, his lawyer said Friday. Matthew Lee, a former Lehman senior vice president, was fired days after questioning the accounting tricks in a letter to his superiors, attorney Erwin Shustak said. Shustak gave a copy of the letter to The Associated Press. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. imploded in September 2008, becoming the biggest corporate bankruptcy in U.S. history.

The Lehman Whistleblower’s Letter
The Wall Street Journal, March 19, 2010
Summary: Here is the letter that placed the little-known Lehman executive at the center of allegations that Lehman manipulated its numbers and misled investors. (Blog posting)

Report in UK Shows Reprisals Still Common 10 Years After Whistleblower Protection Law Passed

Tenfold rise in whistleblower cases taken to tribunal
The Guardian (Manchester), March 22, 2010
Summary: The number of employees claiming to have been sacked, mistreated or bullied for exposing corrupt practices at work has increased tenfold over the last decade, according to official figures. The figures, compiled for the first time, will increase fears among campaigners that whistleblowers are being deliberately undermined or removed from their workplace, despite repeated promises to protect them. The information was collated by the charity Public Concern at Work in a report into 10 years of whistleblower protection.

  • Share/Bookmark
by Ian Bron on March 22, 2010
filed in Media Updates
tagged , , , , , , , ,

The Loyalty Lie

One of the most common excuses made for reprisals against whistleblowers is something I call the loyalty lie. It’s an argument that has a long and sordid history, mostly because of its success in convincing the uninformed. It happens to be a bête noire of mine – as, like many whistleblowers, I’ve been accused of disloyalty – so I’d like to explore the issue today. Keep in mind that this is a layman’s exploration. I invite expert opinion. Yes, I’m looking at you, Richard.

Loyalty as a concept

Loyalty is defined in Encarta as “a feeling of devotion, duty, or attachment to somebody or something”, and in the Oxford Dictionary as “a strong feeling of support or allegiance”.

But it’s much more than that: it’s a philosophical and ethical concept with thousands of years of history. Plato argued that only a man who is just can be loyal, and many philosophers since have extolled its virtues. Some have even called it the highest virtue, an interpretation with which I would disagree. After all, few would now call loyalty to Hitler a virtue. Nonetheless, it’s a view that still has many adherents, particularly in hierarchical organizations.

The Importance of Loyalty

Loyalty does have its uses. It’s important to the functioning of any organization, for example, and friendships could not exist without it. Indeed, societies themselves depend on it: when the condottieri of Italian city states met the national armies of Europe in the 15th and 16th Centuries, those cities quickly learned the importance of national loyalty as their mercenaries were routinely scattered or bribed off the battlefield.

The enforcement of laws is made easier, too, by the loyalty of citizens to the nation, its laws and cultural norms. This is tied to a loyalty to issues of common interest, such as the prevention and reduction of pollution or the protection of children from exploitation.

In organizations, it can be a matter of survival. While personal interest need not conflict with organizational loyalty, when it does, and the individual resolves the conflict in favour of personal interest, it becomes a danger.

This is because disloyal employees will not act in the interests of an organization. This could manifest itself in a number of ways – theft, laziness and carelessness area few examples. Other examples include actions which put the organization in danger of acting illegally or unethically. While such actions might seem to have short-term utility, they will ultimately hurt the organization and may even threaten its existence. Enron, Worldcom, and Lehmann Brothers Holdings provide good examples.

Multiple Loyalties

If loyalty toward an organization, nation, person or other object can be defined as acting in its interests, or at least not against them, and perhaps even making sacrifices, then disloyalty might be seen as acting against those interests and never making such sacrifices. But is it really so simple?

Aside from those who always act in self-interest, and are accordingly only loyal to themselves, where most first people begin to go adrift is in failing to recognize that we all have multiple loyalties: loyalty to self, loyalty to family, loyalty to friends, loyalty to the employer, loyalty to society, and even to personal codes. These must be balanced.

Conflicts in Loyalty

So what happens when person is asked to do something by his country which is clearly criminal and a violation of commonly accepted human norms? The Nuremburg trials after World War II made it clear that loyalty to a leader or an organization was not an acceptable defence for the personal acts perpetrated on the orders of the Nazi government. This was reaffirmed in the trial of Second Lieutenant William Calley after the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam.

Yet the soldiers and civilians involved believed they were acting according to the highest standards of loyalty. They were wrong. Individuals are, ultimately, required to make decisions of their own.

These are extreme examples, of course. Most people will never face such situations. But they are worth remembering. Even in everyday life, people tend to defer to authority. Stanley Milgram demonstrated this in his landmark experiment in 1963, when subjects were intimidated into delivering what they thought were near-lethal electrical shocks to a person in another room.

In case you think people have changed, then consider the recent experiment in France presented in “The Game of Death” documentary. If anything, the results were worse.

The Abuse of Loyalty

These examples illustrate, I think, the classic abuse of loyalty. When individuals in an organization come to believe that personal loyalty to other individuals is the highest good, or that loyalty to an organization must take absolute precedence over every other loyalty, then the danger of abuse rises dramatically. Combine it with unquestioning deference to authority, and trouble is certain.

This is, indeed, what I call the loyalty lie. It is a lie that is never explicitly spelled out, probably because when it is the illusion is dispelled. People know better..

Nonetheless, it is what many employers mean when they speak of loyalty.

For example, federal government policy clearly states that “Loyalty to the public interest, as represented and interpreted by the democratically elected government and expressed in law and the Constitution, is among the most fundamental values of public service.”

Yet, in the same document, it states “Public servants must remember what they are – delegates of their minister. And what system they serve – a democratic one where elected officials have legitimacy to define the public interest.” This is typically interpreted at the working level as meaning that public servants must have absolute loyalty to the Minister.

The reason for this interpretation is generally the same as it is in the private sector: individuals in the organization want to prevent employees from remembering their other loyalties, and their duty to speak out when witnessing dangerous, unethical or illegal acts. This happens at the bureaucratic level, too: ministers simply don’t get involved in the day-to-day operations.

Whistleblowing as Loyalty

So what happens when an employee is asked to do something which would endanger the community, perhaps even his own family? Or when he or she witnesses actions that could threaten the organization’s welfare?

Most people, never having thought much about such things, will simply comply with instructions – particularly if they don’t perceive the consequences. This is what Frederick Bird calls moral blindness.

A few do, though. They might perceive a problem. Of those that do, some will buy into the loyalty lie. Others will perceive the danger of speaking out and decline to do so. Bird calls this moral silence.

A very, very few will stand up and become whistleblowers. And they are, in almost all cases, immediately accused of disloyalty.

It should be clear by now that I think this is a perversion of the concept of loyalty. Whistleblowers, where they are genuine, are speaking out against act or omissions which run counter to accepted norms and – often – the law. In addition, since I doubt there are any legitimate (i.e. non-criminal) organizations which have codes of conduct or mission statements that promote illegal or unethical behaviour, they are also acting in accordance with the organization’s stated policies.

Rather, it is the wrongdoers or individuals implicated who are disloyal – for, as I discussed before, they have acted contrary to organization’s best interests. Their motive in labelling the whistleblower disloyal is entirely self-serving and intended to draw attention away from their own acts.

To make matters worse, others in the organization – often human resources staff – will assist. They, too, are acting disloyally, in that they are helping cover up the wrongdoing and in discouraging others who might want to come forward.

So how do we fight this lie? We could start by educating people, and making them face their own moral responsibilities squarely in the eye. We also need to make people understand that there are consequences for the real disloyalty – that of undermining the integrity of the organization, of breaking the law, of acting unethically, and so on.

To do that, of course, needs the commitment and wholehearted backing of people in management and government. But will that happen? I wonder.

  • Share/Bookmark
by Ian Bron on March 20, 2010
filed in Loyalty
tagged , , , ,

Media Update for March 18, 2010

News Summary and Comment:

My lead story today is again the Afghan detainee controversy. Parliamentary committees are again sitting, which gives Liberal and NDP MPs a new opportunity to bang their shoes on the desk. Unfortunately for them, retired justice Frank Iacobucci has been given the responsibility of reviewing sensitive documents before the MPs can see them. This means that they will be lucky to have any fresh evidence within the next couple of years — unless, of course, they find some other way to put the squeeze on the government.

Pundits generally agree that the average Canadian doesn’t care too much what happens in Afghanistan, but this seems to miss the point. The controversy is (or should be) about accountability. If the Liberals really wanted to make hay from this, they would hit hard from that angle. But then they have a few skeletons of their own on that front. I also still maintain that if anyone is going to review the documents, it should be an expert in the field — such as a former Information Commissioner.

A whistleblower has spoken out about the abuse of workers employed by the Canadian Red Cross to rebuild communities after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. Apparently some were abandoned without pay, thousands of miles from home. The Red Cross acknowledges that there were some problems, but said that they were minor and that everything had been addressed.

Transport Canada, meanwhile, has done a major about-face on aviation safety. After years of saying that safety management systems — a form of self-regulation akin to what was in place in food safety prior to the 2008 listeriosis outbreak — is the bee’s knees, they are yanking business aviation oversight back from the Canadian Business Aircraft Association. This follows a very critical report by the Transportation Safety Board. No mention about the inherent flaws in the SMS approach or about departmental culpability, of course. That would mean admitting they were wrong and that Transport Canada management had been advocating for years for a system that endangers Canadians.

In a new twist, government agencies are now twisting privacy laws to prevent scrutiny of their actions. In a case that was reported in the Toronto Star, Department of Foreign Affairs officials are refusing to grant access to information pertaining to a young woman who went missing in Syria. The requestors? Her family, which believes the department has information that might help them find her — information they also now suspect may embarrass government officials.

This turns the intent of privacy law on its head. Such laws are intended to protect Canadians from the prying eyes of government, not to protect government officials from scrutiny. This isn’t restricted to the federal government, either: Saskatchewan’s Information and Privacy Commissioner just dinged the provincial Ministry of Health.

Have a good weekend.

—————————————————————————————————————————–

Afghan Detainee Documents to be Reviewed by Iacobucci

Red Cross Whistleblower Exposes Abuse of Indonesian Workers

Major Changes in Aviation Safety

The Abuse of Privacy and Access Laws

CFIA Again Under Fire

Rights and Democracy under Scrutiny in Parliamentary Committee

—————————————————————————————————————————–

Afghan Detainee Documents to be Reviewed by Iacobucci

More power urged for judge vetting Afghan-detainee papers
Globe and Mail, March 16, 2010
Summary: The Liberals are urging the government to give more powers to the retired Supreme Court judge who will decide which documents to make public on the Afghan detainee issue. During Question Period yesterday, Liberal MP Bob Rae said lawyer Frank Iacobucci should be able to see all of the documents he wants, and not just those provided by the government.

Canada broke pledges on Afghan jails, letters show
Globe and Mail, March 16, 2010
Summary: Canada and its allies have repeatedly promised — and failed — to build a new prison in Afghanistan where transferred detainees could be interned without risk of abuse, torture or ill-treatment and where Afghan guards could be mentored and trained in treating battlefield captives within the bounds of international law, according to Afghan secret police documents.

Canadians transfer prisoners to possible torture, hearing told
The Star (Toronto), March 17, 2010
Summary: Detainees handed over to Afghan authorities by Canadian soldiers still face a substantial risk of torture, a civil rights lawyer has told MPs.

—————————————————————————————————————————–

Red Cross Whistleblower Exposes Abuse of Indonesian Workers

Red Cross tsunami workers abused
CBC News, March 17, 2010
Summary: Some construction workers hired by the Canadian Red Cross to help rebuild communities following the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami were left stranded and never paid for their work, according to an investigation by Radio-Canada.

—————————————————————————————————————————–

Major Changes in Aviation Safety

Many Canadian runways still too short: safety board
Globe and Mail, March 16, 2010
Summary: Major runways at Canadian airports are still too short — increasing the risk of planes overshooting the runway like the Air France jet that crashed and burned five years ago at Toronto’s Pearson International Airport, the Transportation Safety Board is warning. In a blast against government inaction, the independent federal body said its recommendation for the creation of 300-metre safety areas at the end of major runways has been ignored by Ottawa and the country’s big airports.

Transport Canada shakes up aviation safety
The Star (Toronto), March 16, 2010
Summary: Transport Canada has reversed course on a major initiative to offload aviation oversight and let an industry lobby group police the safety of the business aircraft sector. Transport Minister John Baird announced Tuesday that the federal experiment that gave the Canadian Business Aircraft Association the job of licensing and overseeing business aviation — everything from single-engine Pipers to corporate jets — would be ending.

—————————————————————————————————————————–

The Abuse of Privacy and Access Laws

Ottawa’s absurd secrecy
The Star (Toronto), March 14, 2010
Summary: Why are Canadian officials obtusely imposing a veil of secrecy on the disappearance of Nicole Vienneau in Syria? As national affairs writer Linda Diebel reported in the Sunday Star, Ottawa is preventing her family from seeing federal files on the case, on the absurd pretext that to do so would violate her privacy rights, of all things. (Editorial)

Privacy has its limits
National Post, March 16, 2010
Summary: In recent years, governments at every level have made a fetish of privacy. For the most part, this has been part of a good-faith effort to protect ordinary Canadians from identity theft, unwanted publicity, and other pitfalls of the information age. Unfortunately, the privacy doctrine is also being used as a fig leaf by cynical government officials who wish to hide embarrassing information. (Editorial)

Privacy Law Nightmare
The Star (Toronto), March 16, 2010
Summary: I wrote Sunday about the bureaucratic maze faced by a family who ran into a wall when trying to access information about a family member missing in Syria for three years. Federal privacy officials told Kathryn Murray she couldn’t get the requested documents relating to her missing daughter, Nicole Vienneau, without Nicole’s permission. It’s a cliché to say it’s Kafkaesque, but it is. Since Sunday, I’ve heard from many readers in similar circumstances, frustrated by officials who cite the law when withholding important information, including one woman who couldn’t get what she needed relating to her husband who died on federal property. (Editorial)

Privacy commissioner says Sask. Health unreasonable over information request
Winnipeg Free Press, March 17, 2010
Summary: Saskatchewan’s privacy commissioner says the provincial Health Ministry charged excessive fees for a request for access to information.

Saskatchewan NDP wants release of Douglas files
Globe and Mail, March 17, 2010
Summary: He may be the “Greatest Canadian,” but Tommy Douglas’s life as a cloak-and-dagger target remains a state secret – something his old political party wants to change. Saskatchewan NDP leader Dwain Lingenfelter yesterday introduced a motion that demands CSIS release its classified file on the firebrand political leader.

—————————————————————————————————————————–

CFIA Again Under Fire

Agriculture minister defends Canada’s food inspection system
National Post, March 15, 2010Summary: Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz defended Canada’s food-safety system on Monday after internal records surfaced showing the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is scrambling to maintain an increased presence at meat processing plants to adhere to American food-safety standards.

—————————————————————————————————————————–

Rights and Democracy under Scrutiny in Parliamentary Committee

Rights&DemocracyWatch: Meanwhile, in another part of the parliamentary forest
CBC News, March 18, 2010
Summary: Taking a brief pause from our continuing coverage of the battle for parliamentary supremacy, a brief update on the latest developments on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, and its efforts to investigate the current state of affairs at the embattled agency

  • Share/Bookmark
by Ian Bron on March 18, 2010
filed in Media Updates
tagged , , , , , , ,

A Question of Culture

In my last article, I looked at how whistleblowers are created by bad management — not just in the sense of allowing problems to exist, but by reacting badly to the whistleblowing, which convinces the whistleblower that he or she is right. This escalates the confrontation. It’s a problem in Canadian governments — provincial and federal — because they’re bureaucratic and rigidly hierarchical, and because the culture doesn’t support dissent.

Today my question is: has federal government management and culture changed since the Federal Accountability Act of 2006? And what about provincial governments?

Government is a huge beast, so it’s dangerous to make generalizations. But I think that it’s safe to say that bureaucracies are resistant to change. Risk-taking is discouraged because of, well, the risks. As to the structure, every government in Canada is hierarchical. Hierarchies made up of people who rose through the ranks of the public service by demonstrating their loyalty to the prevailing culture and ethos. After all, how else could merit be demonstrated? Government isn’t a business, no matter what management pundits might try to claim. There is no product that comes out of the machine, to be delivered to a consumer. It can’t go bankrupt.

To illustrate, Canadians may not realize that executive performance in government is measured using standards set by the people being measured. Success is generally assured, as demonstrated by the fact that over 95% of executives in the federal government receive performance bonus each year. Given decades of research in the field that shows management quality follows a bell curve, that figure is absurd.

How this is done has not changed since 2006, in either the federal or provincial public services.

As for culture, it’s rarely law that causes change. Take drunk driving: it was illegal for decades before a major cultural shift in the 1980s made it socially unacceptable.

With this in mind, remember that the current batch of senior bureaucrats are mainly baby boomers. They came of age when rigid hierarchies and more autocratic leadership methods were the norm, before the spreading of situational or participative leadership methods. They went to school when corporal punishment in schools was accepted.

But it doesn’t stop with management. Even many staff don’t like whistleblowers. Most bureaucrats believe that they must be loyal to their superiors, no matter how obvious the incompetence or misconduct. Some stay in line out of fear, some because they don’t want to be associated with a rebel. Some want to be a team player, no matter how bad the team. Some dislike whistleblowers on principal. They don’t see the purpose. Work internally for positive change, goes the mantra. Unfortunately, that rarely works.

And then there are the practical issues. In the Canadian government, deputy ministers (or the equivalent) handle the administration of the department. Correspondence rarely actually reaches him or her — staffers simply direct it into the bureaucracy. In this way, it usually ends up in the hands of the people implicated, who usually and predictably embark on a witch hunt.

Again, this has not changed in the federal government since 2006. Managers are still hired the same way, using the same tests and criteria.

In provincial governments, there wasn’t even the FAA or a Sponsorship Scandal to encourage change.

None of this bodes well for the whistleblower. The evidence doesn’t look good, either. Look at the listeriosis outbreak of 2008. Luc Pomeleau, an inspector at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, raised the alarm about the dangers of cutting inspections — and was fired for doing so. Six weeks later, people started dying.

Then, last November, Richard Colvin spoke to Parliamentary Committee about how he had tried to warn senior government officials the abuse and torture of Afghan prisoners being transferred to Afghan authorities. He was publicly ridiculed, with officials stopping just short of calling him a liar.

Meanwhile, the new Public Service Integrity Officer has only caught one corrupt official in her three years in office. In her annual reports, she explains this failure to perform as the result of her efforts to focus on “prevention”. No wonder public servants are calling her office a cruel joke.

And what happens to officials implicated? Nothing. Even in the Sponsorship Scandal, only Chuck Guité faced any sanction. Nobody who helped him suffered any penalty. They just moved on to bigger and better things.

At the provincial level, there were at least a few firings when the eHealth Ontario scandal broke, along with the resignation of the Deputy Minister of Health. In Quebec, it looks less promising: the recent construction industry corruption scandal has led to calls for an inquiry. But Premier Charest is having none of that, and I think it has a lot to do with widespread culpability at the political level. Culpability, I suspect, that would ensnare members of all parties.

Nova Scotia had one MLA resign as a result of the expense scandal that has been unwinding – but when it comes to apologies, the silence is deafening.

So do I think the culture of government has changed, or is capable of changing as things stand?

No.

The culture of entitlement — entitlement without accountability – still prevails. Whistleblowers remain unprotected, and oversight is week.

This should have Canadians up in arms, but it doesn’t. Perhaps it’s because we’re too complacent. Perhaps we’re too cynical. Perhaps we like it this way.

Whatever it is, I think it’s only a matter of time before we have another scandal, or outbreak, or plane crash.

Perhaps then Canadians will sit up.

  • Share/Bookmark
by Ian Bron on March 13, 2010
filed in Whistlebowing and Culture
tagged , , , , , ,
« Older Posts